philippics to illustrate the evils of the autocratic form of government.
Imperial whims, it was said, over-ride grave economic considerations.
In recent years, however, a change seems to have taken place in public
opinion, and some people now assert that this so-called Imperial whim
was an act of far-seeing policy. As by far the greater part of the goods
and passengers are carried the whole length of the line, it is well that
the line should be as short as possible, and that branch lines should be
constructed to the towns lying to the right and left. Evidently there is
a good deal to be said in favour of this view.

In the development of the railway system there has been another
disturbing cause, which is not likely to occur to the English mind. In
England, individuals and companies habitually act according to their
private interests, and the State interferes as little as possible;
private initiative does as it pleases, unless the authorities can prove
that important bad consequences will necessarily result. In Russia, the
onus probandi lies on the other side; private initiative is allowed
to do nothing until it gives guarantees against all possible bad
consequences. When any great enterprise is projected, the first question
is--"How will this new scheme affect the interests of the State?" Thus,
when the course of a new railway has to be determined, the military
authorities are among the first to be consulted, and their opinion has
a great influence on the ultimate decision. The natural consequence is
that the railway-map of Russia presents to the eye of the strategist
much that is quite unintelligible to the ordinary observer--a fact that
will become apparent even to the uninitiated as soon as a war breaks out
in Eastern Europe. Russia is no longer what she was in the days of the
Crimean War, when troops and stores had to be conveyed hundreds of miles
by the most primitive means of transport. At that time she had only
750 miles of railway; now she has over 36,000 miles, and every year new